| |
Viewpoint
Letters to the editor
Europe cannot afford to reject Turkey
05/2004 |
|
Letters to the editor
Poverty
and liberalisation
Getting rich in the fight against poverty,
D+C 2004:1, p. 32
There is scientific evidence that Pierre Kodjio Nenguié’s insight that “development through privatization has proven a recipe for further improverishment” is completely or partially wrong, especially since the author generalises without providing any evidence or examples. Everybody, including NGOs, academics, government officials, et cetera understand that privatisation, like many other development actions, should be dealt with on a project-by-project basis. There are bad and good examples. I live in Peru and I have seen successful privatisations, such as in the mining sector, environmental problems notwithstanding, and failures, such as in telecomunications, were we now have the highest rates in South America. But we should learn from failures.
In many countries, especially in Africa, governments just don’t have the funds to provide basic services, such as telephone, water, roads or electricity. Only private industry can provide the equity financing (not loans from international financial institutions) for these services, and the most appropriate way is through privatisation. But, as the author rightly says, this must go hand in hand with appropriate control and take care that the benefits accrue to the general population.
Privatisation as such is not necessarily bad; if done curruptly, it leads to failures. But so do government services, as for example in Peru where they are used almost only for providing jobs to the members of the governing party. Not all transnational corporations are bad, and most of them are less corrupt than governments and their agencies.
Wolfgang Gluschke, Lima
Sri Lanka
The president’s curse,
D+C 2004:3, p. 116
Though the article by Dr. Volker Riehl is basically sympathetic to the people of Sri Lanka there are some notable and even egregious errors that need to be brought to your attention.
The article claims that Sri Lanka is once more on the brink of war. As you are aware there is a peace process that has been underway since February 2002 and a Ceasefire Agreement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Both President Mrs. Chandrika Kumaratunga and the Prime Minister Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe who are in opposing political parties are committed to arriving at a negotiated solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The summary of the article in bold letters mentions, “elected politicians in Sri Lanka are jeopardising a desperately needed peace”.
While it is true that the two political parties in power are unable to agree on how negotiations towards a lasting peace settlement should proceed, it is an indisputable fact that these leaders are popularly elected and that they are committed to peace. On the contrary the LTTE, which submitted proposals for an Interim Self Governing Authority (ISGA) in October 2003, are un-elected and operate a totalitarian regime in the north and East of Sri Lanka. While the LTTE’s leader Mr. V. Prabhakaran claims to be the sole representative of the Tamil people in the North and East of Sri Lanka, it is a fact that the LTTE under his leadership has exterminated his political rivals from among Tamil parties and guerrilla groups.
It must also be pointed out that the LTTE itself is now divided with the military commander for Batticaloa and Amparai in the East Col. Karuna together with 6000 guerrillas declaring his independence from the LTTE’s leadership in the Northern Province. He says that the LTTE cannot any longer claim to represent the Tamil-speaking people of the North and East. Moreover Col. Karuna wants to negotiate a separate Ceasefire Agreement for the districts of Amparai and Batticaloa with the Government of Sri Lanka.
It is quite inaccurate for the writer to categorically assert that “the USA approves of the LTTE peace plan”. The USA supports the desire of the LTTE to arrive at a federal solution to the ethnic conflict. However, it has categorically stated that it will not be able to lift the ban it has imposed on the LTTE as long as it refuses to renounce trhe use of terror as a weapon in pursuing its political objectives. (It is worth noting that Britain and India also continue to ban the LTTE.)
It is incorrect for the writer to state that the “chauvinist nationalities policy of the 1950’s” created the current problem. The problems go much further back to colonial policies of divide and rule dating back to the pre-independence era. However, both the President and the Government have acknowledged that majoritarian politics in the post independence period exacerbated latent tensions between the Sinhala and Tamil-speaking people that colonial rule had fostered. To remedy some of the sho, several measures have been instituted by successive governments such as making Tamil the language of the minority an official language together with Sinhala while English has become a link language.
C. D. Casie Chetty,
Sri Lankan Ambassador in Berlin
Consultants matter
Does policy need advice?
D + C 2004:1, p. 12
I have read with interest the panel discussion in the January issue on the subject of “consultancy”. This is very relevant to the subject of development policy in Germany. The problem, however, is the way we handle the subject of “consultancy”. What we need is not new or different institutions, but more incentives for academics to debate the practical questions of aid policy.
Consultancy, not only at an academic level but also at an innovation-oriented private sector level, is grossly under-utilised in Germany. Even now many of those involved in development policy associate consultancy with higher education and expert appraisals, or with the implementation of projects. Instead, we should be seeing more transparent competition to stimulate ideas for policy, programme and project consultancy within development policy.
Dr. Berthold Kuhn,
InnovateCo – Consultants and Researchers in Partnership, Berlin
The editor reserves the right to shorten
readers’ letters. The shorter a letter is, the greater the chance of it being published.
|
